linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] iio: inv_mpu6050: Check WHO_AM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:09:20 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:	Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@...el.com>,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] iio: inv_mpu6050: Check WHO_AM_I register on probe

On 25/04/16 12:17, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 04/24/2016 02:14 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 20/04/16 14:15, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>>> This can be used to distinguish mpu6500. This is a warning rather than
>>> an error because the differences are mostly irrelevant and it's nice to
>>> avoid breaking users with slightly incorrect ACPI/DT.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@...el.com>
>> Would we be better off fixing their configuration though by using the right part
>> if we can identify it?  So if wrong, maybe we should search the info table to 
>> figure out what it is?  I'm not certain on this though as then we are trying to
>> deal with unknown future cases - maybe what you have here is the best balance.
> 
> I'm not sure about that. One issue is that 6000/6050/9150 have the same
> WHOAMI value and can't be distinguished this way. They also seem to
> identical interfaces. Models MPU6500 and MPU9250 report different WHOAMI
> values.
> 
> Changing chip_type based on the WHOAMI would require some additional
> refactoring. Placing that in a separate patch might be worthwhile anyway.
> 
Agreed.
>>> +#define INV_MPU6050_REG_WHOAMI			117
>>> +
>>> +#define INV_MPU6000_WHOAMI_VALUE		0x68
>>> +#define INV_MPU6050_WHOAMI_VALUE		0x68
>>> +#define INV_MPU6500_WHOAMI_VALUE		0x70